Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026
Lord Caine Excerpts(3 days, 18 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bew, with his historical perspective. I thank the Minister for her detailed introduction to these instruments. We on these Benches support all three measures; I shall, therefore, be extremely brief.
Liberal Democrats have always had significant reservations about the introduction of voter ID at polling stations. We believe that it is extremely important that nothing is done to discourage people from voting. However, I understand that the particular circumstances in Northern Ireland required voter ID to be in place well before voter ID was introduced to the rest of the UK. I am, therefore, fully supportive of measures that increase the number of acceptable documents that can be used in polling stations in Northern Ireland, such as the Armed Forces veteran card, PASS—Proof of Age Standards Scheme—cards and the blue badge for the disabled persons’ parking scheme.
I have a couple of quick questions for the Minister. First, I understand from the Explanatory Memorandum that “the permitted identity documents” will be kept
“under review in consultation with the Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland”.
Following on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, can the Minister say how frequently she expects additional forms of ID to be added, if appropriate?
My second question goes slightly beyond the scope of these SIs. Given the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for devolution, can the Minister say whether the Government are giving any consideration to reviewing local government in Northern Ireland, both in terms of expanding the powers and budget that local authorities in Northern Ireland have and on the wider question of the wider devolution settlement in Northern Ireland? I do not necessarily expect her to reply to that this evening, obviously, but perhaps it is something that we could discuss in a future debate or in more detail at a later stage.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, before I turn to the measures before us, this is the first opportunity that I have had to pass on publicly my sincere condolences to the family of Stephen Walker, a journalist in Northern Ireland of great professional integrity whom I knew for around 30 years. I commend both of his biographies—one of John Hume and the other of David Trimble. Stephen was only 61 years of age when he died a few days ago; it is very sad indeed.
Secondly, I warmly welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. She will recall that, when we first faced each other, following the general election just over two years ago, I expressed some regret that Northern Ireland did not have a full-time Minister in your Lordships’ House. I am very pleased that that has now been rectified, and I sincerely congratulate her on her elevation to Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.
I turn to the three regulations that we are debating today. They bring Northern Ireland’s voter ID and spending rules into line with the rules that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom, mainly England, and as such we do not oppose these measures. I have one question to put to the Minister on the issue of the veteran card. What assessment have the Government made of the possibility that veterans in Northern Ireland may be reticent to carry such a card and use it for voter identification? There has been some reluctance in the past, as Members of the Committee will know, for veterans to identify themselves in such ways. Of course, that reticence is no reason not to grant electors the option to use a veteran cards if they wish to do so, but it would be helpful to know what work, if any, the Government have done on this.
As the Minister knows, the Representation of the People Bill, which is currently being debated in the Chamber, will amend legislation to allow for bank cards—that is, non-photographic ID—to be used as a form of voter ID. Have Ministers made an assessment on the potential risk to electoral fraud in Northern Ireland of using bank cards? I ask this very conscious of the fact that it was a Labour Government in the early 2000s—in 2002, I believe—who legislated to move from paper ID to photo ID for Northern Ireland, given the historic experience of high levels of voter personation there.
On spending limits, we accept that the update is sensible, but there is a question of coherence. I understand that, on 29 August, the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government announced a review into candidate spending limits, with the implication that they are too high. How does this measure before us today relate to that review?
I assure the Minister that I personally regard votes at 16 as completely insane. If the Government are committed to pursuing this madness, what work are they doing to ensure that younger voters have access to voter ID?
Slightly more broadly, in July this year, the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland published a paper on the future of electoral registration and the canvass, in which he declared the once-a-decade canvass to be no longer fit for purpose. Can the Minister say whether the Northern Ireland Office has had an opportunity yet to study his recommendations? I appreciate that they were published only in July, but do they agree with them and do they have a timetable to take them forward?
Finally, with the indulgence of the Committee, I turn to issues beyond these regulations. This is the first opportunity that I have had to ask questions of the Minister since the President of the United States visited Ireland, in his usual understated way, at the weekend. Can the Minister say what the position is of His Majesty’s Government on the President’s remarks in support of a united Ireland? Do they, like my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition and me, regard those comments as deeply unhelpful and irresponsible? What discussions have Ministers had, or plan to have, with the United States Administration following those remarks? Can the Minister reaffirm the position of the Prime Minister using exactly the same words when he said in Belfast recently that a border poll is off the table? Can she reiterate that it is for the people of Northern Ireland alone to determine the constitutional future of Northern Ireland? Finally, can she confirm that it is the clear wish of His Majesty’s Government, as it is my party, that the people of Northern Ireland will always express their desire to remain part of the United Kingdom?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, there was me thinking we were just going to talk about elections in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I immediately confess that one of my ministerial responsibilities is for elections in Northern Ireland. Given the imminent elections, I think that in part answers some of the questions about the timing and further reviews that we may need to undertake. We have an urgency before us to make sure that there is a level playing field for the elections that are about to happen.
I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful consideration and input today. I want to take this opportunity to provide some further detail on some of the points that have been raised. I start with the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, on electoral fraud. He asked several questions; I will have to reflect on some of them and come back to him. On the breakdown of veterans’ cards and the number of veterans who likely to use this form of ID as well as wider forms of ID, that information is not published. We are not sure whether it is collected by the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland, but I shall ask and write to the noble Lord with a follow-up.
The issue of absentee voting was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Weir.
Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova
Lord Caine Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, a 164-page report really should have been accompanied by an Oral Statement by the Government in Parliament. The report contains much uncomfortable reading, and our sympathies are with those who lost loved ones. We also recognise again the immense role of the RUC, the Armed Forces and the intelligence services in securing peace. Can the Minister reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the “neither confirm nor deny” doctrine as essential for the protection of national security? On legacy, the Irish Government have now promised the fullest possible co-operation with the renamed Legacy Commission. What undertakings have they given that this will mean exactly the same levels of disclosure by them and their agencies as is required of the UK Government and their agencies?
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I first put on record my sincere thanks to both Jon Boutcher and Sir Iain Livingstone for an extraordinary piece of work. They have set the standard both for gaining the trust of victims and ensuring that we have an Article 2-compliant investigation, which has given us very sobering reading. The noble Lord is aware that, yesterday, we published a Written Ministerial Statement, and he is aware of the ongoing litigation concerning many of the issues in the report. We will be discussing them in more detail once some of that litigation is completed.
On the noble Lord’s points about our security services, I completely agree with him. As he knows, because I have said it from this Dispatch Box, I agree that our security services and all those who wore uniforms during the Troubles ran towards danger to keep us all safe. They continue to do so every single day, both in Northern Ireland and in the rest of GB.
On “neither confirm nor deny”, the noble Lord is right: the first duty of any Government is to protect national security, and we must therefore ensure that sensitive information that is injurious to the public interest, including information that could damage national security or present a real risk of harm to life, is not released. NCND is an important protection, particularly where disclosure of information might otherwise compromise the recruitment and retention of CHIS, but it also covers a broad range of other sensitive national security activities. There will be no change.
On the role of the Irish state, noble Lords are aware that in September we published a joint framework on how we will work together on legacy. We hope and expect to see that delivered in full.
“Soldier F” Trial Verdict
Lord Caine Excerpts(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, as part of the small team that helped my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton draft his apology for Bloody Sunday, I stand by every word in that Statement. But in the case of soldier F, 15 years after the 12-year Saville inquiry, the judge was clear that the evidence presented fell well short of the standard required for a conviction. Meanwhile, last month, a different judge in Belfast dismissed the challenge against another former soldier, after four years of investigation, as being “utterly divorced from reality”. Does this not reinforce what we have consistently said about the chances of successful prosecutions at this distance from the Troubles being vanishingly small? Given that, will the Government now think again about the provisions in their Troubles Bill that will leave the terrorists largely untouched but mean elderly veterans once again facing lengthy investigations and being dragged back before the courts?
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his work with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in response to Bloody Sunday. We need to remember at this point, as at all points, that we are talking about people and their experiences. With regard to the substantive point that he raised, I remind your Lordships’ House that the current legacy Act did not halt the prosecution of soldier F. Unfortunate false promises, as it turns out, were made to the veterans community about immunity, but they would never have been able to be applied.
I remind noble Lords that we have drafted our forthcoming Troubles legislation, which we will have many opportunities to discuss in your Lordships’ House, with veterans at its heart, to make sure that the provisions that veterans community organisations have asked for are reflected in it, along with the protection of our veterans. During this week of remembrance, it is incredibly important that we put on record every day our thanks to those who are currently serving, those who have served and those who served in Operation Banner.
Northern Ireland Troubles
Lord Caine Excerpts(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Secretary of State’s Statement. At the outset, it is right that in approaching this issue, first and foremost in our thoughts are the victims and survivors of the Troubles. Over 3,500 lives were lost, tens of thousands more were maimed and injured, families were broken, and communities and livelihoods were destroyed, overwhelmingly at the hands of terrorists right here in this United Kingdom.
We also recall with pride those who stood in the front line against terrorism to protect the community, to uphold democracy and to maintain the rule of law. As the Statement acknowledges, and I welcome this, the vast majority of the more than 250,000 people who served during Operation Banner did so with the utmost courage, total professionalism, even-handedness and restraint in the face of often the most fierce provocation. Without their efforts, there would have been no peace process and no Belfast agreement, and we all owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. Unfortunately, our concern over the proposals now being brought forward is that, in honouring that debt, they sadly fall short.
I do not need reminding at all how difficult, sensitive and emotional these matters are. Finding consensus, often even within communities or the same groups, has eluded successive Governments, including, I admit, my own. Yet the previous Government’s legislation, while never perfect—as I often made clear—sought to establish a route towards providing victims and survivors with more information about what happened to their loved ones, while at the same time providing protections to those who served. While acknowledging the legal challenges, the current Government could have pursued the appeals that we had lodged. Instead, they took the political decision to abandon them, and today, however much they seek to dress this up, we have a set of proposals that will see elderly veterans hauled before the coroners’ courts to account for the events of decades ago—or, worse still, face the possibility of criminal prosecutions at a time when we all know that the chances of former paramilitaries facing the courts will be vanishingly small.
The Government will of course point to the package of six so-called protections that they will introduce, but can the noble Baroness confirm that a number of them, such as anonymity or appearing remotely, are already at the discretion of the court? The Statement says that the protections will apply to other groups, such as police officers, yet inexplicably it omits to mention whether they apply to former paramilitaries, presumably a drafting oversight by the Northern Ireland Office. In September, when asked to clarify whether the protections were for everybody who came forward, including paramilitaries, the Prime Minister said, “No, it’s for veterans”, but we know that this is not the case. Will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister was wrong and that five of the six so-called protections for veterans will apply equally to former paramilitaries?
On inquests, will the noble Baroness tell the House how many will now resume and how many will be referred to the Solicitor-General? Will the resumed inquests include Loughgall, where the SAS prevented a murderous IRA attack on a police station in 1987? On those referred to the Solicitor-General—not, we note, the Attorney-General—what criteria will be applied to determine whether they are allowed to proceed or whether they will be taken on by the legacy commission?
At the point at which they were stopped, more than 700 civil cases had been lodged with the courts in Belfast. Can the Minister therefore tell us what additional resource will be provided to the courts service to deal with this backlog and the inevitable new wave of cases, presumably mostly directed against the state, that the Government’s proposals will unleash? Do they intend to provide extra support to the PSNI for the additional burdens placed on it by reopening inquest and civil cases, in addition to the £250 million committed to legacy by the previous Government?
On Gerry Adams, can the Minister set out in more detail how the Government’s proposals will prevent him and others receiving a single penny of compensation, not least since Mr Adams has already announced his intention to challenge this?
On the role of the Irish Government, we welcome their new-found enthusiasm to address legacy matters, when there has not been a single prosecution for a Troubles-related incident within their jurisdiction since 1998. Can the Minister tell us what “fullest co-operation” means in practice when exactly the same words were used in respect of the Omagh public inquiry, yet the Omagh families remain highly critical of the role of the Irish Government?
Finally, is it not an unbelievable approach to negotiation that the Government would agree to a joint framework with Ireland while it maintains an interstate case against the United Kingdom in Strasbourg? They criticised our legislation for lacking consensus, yet is it not a fact that the only consensus they have achieved is with an Irish Government who hold a threat over them that they will not drop this case until they are satisfied by legislation passed in this United Kingdom Parliament relating to a part of our own country?
I look forward to the Minister’s detailed replies. If she is unable to give the detail needed at the Dispatch Box today—I appreciate that she has quite a long day—will she commit to write to me?
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement that was made in the House of Commons last week. Dealing with the past is a highly complex subject that inevitably provokes strong emotions. It is not surprising but is, I believe, highly regrettable that when the Good Friday/Belfast agreement was signed 27 years ago, legacy issues were left for the most part unresolved. Time may have passed but the pain and anger felt by so many victims, survivors and their families remain very real and deeply painful.
From the nearly 10 years that I have been covering Northern Ireland from these Benches, I observe that it is relatively easy to criticise the Government of the day in their response to dealing with legacy issues, but it is rather harder to come up with concrete proposals once in government. It is extremely difficult to have proposals, as the Statement says, that are acceptable to all, but it has to be a question of fairness, balance and proportionality. Most of all, we need an approach that helps to rebuild trust in the process through transparent institutions capable of delivering reconciliation based on truth, justice and closure.
I do not doubt the sincerity with which the noble Lord, Lord Caine, with all his experience, is criticising many of the Government’s revised legacy proposals and has asked so many questions, but we should, none the less, recall that the legacy Act from the previous Conservative Government was almost unique in recent times in its achievement of uniting all Northern Ireland political parties, as well as the victims’ groups, against it. It was also challenged in the courts, proved not to be compliant with our international human rights obligations and was unworkable in practice, so the current Government were duty-bound to reverse many of the elements in that Act, notably the section on immunity.
I welcome that the Government are once again attempting to square the circle and move us forward on dealing with the past in Northern Ireland. In particular, I welcome the commitment to ensuring that the legislation is ECHR-compliant. In that regard, can the Minister confirm that she now expects the interstate case against the UK by the Republic of Ireland to be dropped once this legislation has been passed—and, I sincerely hope, even sooner?
We will have lots of time to examine this Bill in great detail during its passage through your Lordships’ House and to press the Government on how many of its proposals will work in practice, but since the Bill’s publication last week it is clear that the greatest area of concern has been that regarding the rights of veterans. As my colleague Al Pinkerton MP has so rightly put it, veterans
“need to feel that the process of prosecution does not become persecution”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/25; col. 257.]
I know that the Minister is an honorary captain in the Royal Navy and cares very deeply about these issues, but can she confirm that she personally has been consulting with veteran groups? Will she say a little more about how veterans will be protected from vexatious cases following this legislation? I understand from the discussions in the House of Commons last week that it is proposed that the Ministry of Defence will act as a point of initial contact, but can she say a little more about how she sees this operating in practice?
In conclusion, from these Benches we look forward to engaging constructively with the Government on this Bill and to finding ways to ensure that it keeps victims right at the heart of this process, while ensuring fairness and proportionality for veterans.
Casement Park: Spending Review
Lord Caine Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I absolutely do agree with the noble Lord. Sport is incredibly important to each and every one of us—in different ways with different sports—but we need to make sure that delivery of both funding and our commitment to sport is based on the sport and people’s engagement with it.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, having attended a GAA match at Celtic Park in the Bogside in Londonderry last April, I am fully aware of the importance of Gaelic games for large numbers in the community in Northern Ireland. I also understand the strong emotions generated by Casement Park for others, not least given what happened there in March 1988. Further to the question by my noble friend Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, on this side we share the dismay expressed about the naming of GAA stadiums, stands and even competitions after terrorists such as Joe Cahill, an IRA godfather of many decades who was convicted for murder and who undoubtedly oversaw the murder of many others. What assessment have the Government made of the impact that this has on community relations across Northern Ireland and on impressionable young children? Does the Minister agree that if Northern Ireland is to have a genuinely shared future in which all parts of the community have a stake, this kind of thing really has to stop?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a genuinely important point about how sport should be used as a vehicle for bringing people together. There is a responsibility for the UK Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, and all local politicians and local community activists to make sure that is true.
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2025
Lord Caine Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her presentation. I am pleased to support the order. We all have a responsibility to ensure that peace, stability and justice are protected and long-lasting. It is important to acknowledge that good progress regarding the security situation in Northern Ireland has been made and that the threat to jurors has, in some instances, been reduced.
However, recently collected evidence confirms that there remains concern about the potential for jury intimidation and bias, particularly in cases with paramilitary connections. Although, as we have heard, there are only a small number of cases where a non-jury trial is necessary, it remains my view that the current provision, though far from perfect, should continue to serve Northern Ireland as a necessary function in supporting the effective delivery of the criminal justice process. Naturally, there is a certain reluctance to renew such exceptional provisions—like others, I wish that such measures were a thing of the past—but, given Northern Ireland’s exceptional security complexity and the spectre of the threat of intimidation from dissident paramilitaries and other criminal elements, the renewal of the non-jury provisions is necessary.
Of course, it is important that we have safeguards. These are built into this, in that decisions for non-jury trials are made on a case-by-case basis. Of course, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland must suspect that one or more of the four safeguard conditions are met. Another protection is that any person convicted before a non-jury court has the right of appeal against sentence or conviction without leave and has the opportunity to have the judgment against them explained; of course, that is not available if they are convicted by a jury.
It is my hope that the day will come when measures such as those before us today are unnecessary, but, unfortunately, the consultation and evidence clearly show that that stage has not been reached. The onus is on all of us to continue to work maturely in order to work out practical ways forward towards achieving a more normalised society in Northern Ireland. Hopefully, we will not be back here in two years’ time to renew this order.
One point of concern that I have regarding non-jury trials is that it appears that they are sometimes subject to considerable delay. I believe that this should be investigated. Of course, jury trials in Northern Ireland are also delayed sometimes, which is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Finally, almost 26 years after the signing of the Belfast agreement, we still have the curse of paramilitary organisations operating across Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that it is time that these paramilitary organisations left the stage without being offered more financial incentives?
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, before I turn to the instrument before the Committee, as this is a Northern Ireland debate and it is 1 July, I want to take a moment to reflect that today marks the 109th anniversary of the first day of the Battle of the Somme. We remember the heroic sacrifice of the men of the 36th (Ulster) Division at Thiepval on that day in 1916 and, later in September, that of the 16th (Irish) Division at Guillemont and Ginchy. I had the honour of representing His Majesty’s Government at the Somme on a number of occasions, including in my last official engagement as a Minister on this day last year; there was never a more solemn, moving or poignant duty.
I turn to the instrument before the Committee. The Opposition support the ninth extension, under the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, for a further two years of non-jury trials in a small number of cases. As the Minister who extended these measures in your Lordships’ House in 2023, I could probably repeat almost word for word what I said a little over two years ago; I am sure that the Committee will be relieved if I do not do so.
As has been pointed out, a non-jury trial may be permitted if the defendant is associated with a proscribed organisation or if the offence being tried is in connection with religious or political hostility. Such cases are high-profile and continue to provoke strong opinion across the community in Northern Ireland. In such circumstances, the risks of jury intimidation and juror bias remain very real probabilities. As such, I agree with the Minister that these measures are both necessary and proportionate.
With that said, it is also worth considering the very real progress that has been made. As the Minister pointed out, and as was recognised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the number of non-jury trials is now around 0.7% of the total number of trials in Northern Ireland and has been at that level for the past few years. To put that into further perspective, that is a total of 10 cases out of some 1,500 in the Crown Court in 2024; this compares to around 300 a year during the peak of the old Diplock system in the 1980s.
I noted with interest the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who is a distinguished former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and, now, the chair of the scrutiny committee. I, probably like him, have lost count of the number of times I have sat in rooms in Washington and New York and had to explain to Irish-American audiences the difference between the old Diplock system and the system that we have had since 2007. We all look forward to the day when all trials will be conducted in front of juries and these measures can lapse, but we remain some way from that today.
The fact that these measures are required reminds us that, although life in Northern Ireland has in many respects been transformed over the past 30 years since the ceasefires and the subsequent Belfast agreement of 1998, there remains a potent terrorist threat. Although the threat level went down from “severe” to “substantial” in March 2024, there can be absolutely no room for complacency. I am always conscious that the difference between those two threat levels of “substantial” and “severe” is one word—“highly”—because “substantial” means that an attack is likely while “severe” means that an attack is highly likely. So we cannot be complacent.
There persist in Northern Ireland small numbers of people determined to pursue their political agenda through acts of terrorism. Although their actions will always ultimately fail in their objectives, they retain both lethal intent and capability. However, they will never succeed because the future of Northern Ireland will only ever be decided by democracy and consent—never by violence. That has been the determination of successive Governments over many years, including the ones in which I served, and I believe that it is the determination of His Majesty’s current Government today.
The reason why there are not more successful—if I can use that word—national security attacks in Northern Ireland is down to the skill, professionalism and bravery of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and our other security agencies, which do so much to thwart them. Like the Minister, I place on the record once again our unstinting support for them, along with our admiration and thanks; we owe them a huge debt of gratitude for the superb job that they do.
In that context, I genuinely welcome the additional security funding for the PSNI that was announced by the Government in the recent spending review. The need for that additional security funding was recognised and delivered by the then coalition Government in 2010 and continued by its Conservative successors. I am pleased that it has been maintained by the current Government; it is of huge importance for the PSNI in its efforts to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe and secure.
In conclusion, the extension of these measures, though regrettable, remains necessary in certain cases to ensure that the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland continues to function. I was struck by the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, on the delays in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. It seems that it can take an interminable time for cases to come to trial; every effort really does need to be made to try to speed up the process.
I agree with the Minister that no Government in the United Kingdom treat this issue of the dispensing of juries in criminal trials lightly. We all share the hope that, sooner rather than later, the day will come when we can dispense with these measures. Until that day comes, however, we have a duty to extend them; the Opposition therefore support the order before the Committee today.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his correction. He did worry me a little that something had happened within the PSNI that I had missed. I have my own slight correction to make, which is more of a technicality: the £200 million I announced for police recruitment has been approved by the Department of Finance but needs executive approval, which it is yet to receive. I wanted to clarify that before I got myself in trouble.
Regarding the very genuine question from my noble friend and many others on the ring-fencing of the PSNI grant, I understand why this is such an issue. We increased the budget during the SR to £19.3 billion, which is the highest amount on record. However, we must be clear on what devolution is and is not. The money has been sent to Northern Ireland; it is there, and it is now up to the politicians in Northern Ireland to prioritise funding. However, as noble Lords will be aware, we have ensured that there is ring-fencing for the additional security fund, and we continue to work daily with the Executive to secure additional funding.
On the delay in trials raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, while the Justice Minister for England is here and definitely heard that request, I will clarify for the record that the issue of delays in the projection of non-jury trials was raised by two respondents to the consultation on how long this was taking. One respondent who objected to the extension of the provisions in particular raised the concern that a judge sitting alone could adjourn the case for a longer period of time than would be possible if a jury had been sitting. However, this should be seen against the backdrop of the wider criminal justice system being subject to delay.
The justice system is devolved, and it is for the Department of Justice to lead. It has work under way to address some of the causes, including work to reform committal processes. PSNI is also progressing work to improve the timeliness of case file submissions to tackle delay. In March 2025, the devolved Minister of Justice welcomed the allocation of additional funding to progress reforms within the justice system, and £20.45 million has been allocated to help speed up and transform the criminal justice system.
Lord Caine (Con)
I do not wish to detain the Committee for much longer. The noble Baroness rightly said that the criminal justice system is devolved in Northern Ireland, but these are cases that involve national security issues, which are, of course, a responsibility of His Majesty’s Government and the Secretary of State. In former times it was very common practice for the Secretary of State and the Justice Minister to have frequent meetings at which they would discuss these matters. Could she assure me that these are continuing and that the Secretary of State regularly engages with the Justice Minister to try to speed up these delays in the criminal justice system?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Like magic, a piece of paper has arrived that confirms that the Secretary of State—
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My officials are absolutely brilliant. It confirms that the Secretary of State engages with the Justice Minister regularly on issues of shared interest and concern, and this obviously includes issues pertaining to national security and will continue to do so. I will endeavour to get an update on anything else that is going on and write to the noble Lord.
I think I have answered most of the substantive points, but there are a couple of others that I want to touch on. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for his previous work on counterterrorism and the work that he is doing with the Northern Ireland committee. That is a step towards normalisation, which has been a theme as we talk about some of these issues. Making sure that normalisation happens, in terms of both counterterrorism and the operation of our communities, is key because we are democrats. Making sure that we are being held to account is key.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie asked when legacy legislation will come forward. She knows me well as a Whip, and I am adamant and clear that we will definitely bring forward such legislation when parliamentary time allows. All noble Lords will be aware that this was a manifesto commitment and was in the King’s Speech, and I expect to spend many hours in Committee debating it with all of you.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister, and I appreciate that she cannot give a time commitment on the introduction of legislation, but can she confirm whether the Government intend to set out the next steps on legacy before the Summer Recess?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I can assure the noble Lord that he and I are likely to be in correspondence before Summer Recess.
Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles
Lord Caine Excerpts(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of Ireland about their approach to addressing the legacy of the Troubles in Northern Ireland since April 1998.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, at the last two British-Irish Intergovernmental Conferences, the Secretary of State and I pressed the Irish Government to co-operate fully with both the Omagh inquiry and the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to provide information for victims and families who desire it. The Secretary of State also wrote to the Tánaiste in January, challenging the Irish Government’s own approach to addressing legacy issues, including the number of Troubles-related prosecutions brought in Ireland since April 1998.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, are we not entitled to expect that the Irish Republic, which we have always sought to treat in a spirit of good neighbourliness, should take some steps to acknowledge that many terrorist atrocities during the Troubles in Ulster were assisted by the planning that took place in its territory and the refuge it provided to some involved in the most dreadful crimes? How vividly I remember the despair at the constant refusal of extradition requests brought to Airey Neave, as Conservative spokesman on Northern Ireland, long ago when I worked for him. Are we not also entitled to take strong exception to the Irish Government’s decision to bring a case against us in the European Court of Human Rights? Granted that the independent commission to deal with issues arising from the legacy of the Troubles became fully operational on 1 May, under the chairmanship of a most distinguished retired judge, does my noble friend agree that the Irish Government should drop their interstate case and focus on co-operating fully with the new legacy body, setting aside the controversies that surrounded its origins?
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, who has vast experience of Northern Ireland matters. He makes a number of extremely important points regarding the role of successive Irish Governments during the Troubles. On the interstate case, the Government profoundly regret the decision of the Irish Government to bring this unnecessary and unhelpful case against the UK, particularly when these matters are likely to be dealt with by the domestic courts long before the case ever reaches Strasbourg. For many families, effective information recovery will require the co-operation of the Irish authorities, and the Government therefore encourage the Irish Government to co-operate fully with the new commission to help provide information to families who want it.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree about the importance of adherence to the rule of law, and that the legacy Act is considered by many to violate the principle of the rule of law? In view of the various legacy cases, judgments and pending cases, what action will the Government take to ensure that victims and survivors are protected through the repeal of this legislation, in particular the immunity provisions, which have caused immense consternation throughout the wider community in Northern Ireland?
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, while I completely respect the views of the noble Baroness, I do not share her characterisation of the legislation. She will be aware that the High Court in Belfast, in its recent judgment, found that the new legacy body, the independent commission, would be able to operate independently of government, and would be able to carry out fully effective Article 2-compliant investigations. It also found that the disclosure obligations on the state meant that the new body is likely to be more effective than the current mechanisms in providing information and answers to victims and survivors.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, the Omagh bomb was the single biggest terrorist attack in the Troubles, costing 29 people their lives, including a woman pregnant with twins. It was also a cross-border incursion, with terrorists coming from the Irish Republic, where they returned after the bombing. I simply ask the Minister why he believes the Irish Government are still refusing to hold their own inquiry into the bombing. What can they possibly be hiding?
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, for his question. We all remember vividly where we were when we heard the news of that awful atrocity in August 1998, and I pay tribute to Michael Gallagher and the other Omagh families who have pursued their case with great dignity and tenacity. As I said in my opening Answer, I raised this directly with the Irish Foreign Minister and Tánaiste at the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference last Monday, and I am pleased that he committed to full Irish Government co-operation with the Omagh bombing inquiry. The Government’s focus is on ensuring that the inquiry has every chance of success, and the Irish Government’s role in that is crucial.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, it is not just the Irish Government who were opposed to the very controversial legacy legislation. Every single Northern Ireland political party opposed it. The Minister knows that you can move in Northern Ireland, eventually, only by consensus. It seems to me that there has to be more discussion with the Irish Government, who are a joint guarantor of the Good Friday agreement after all. Now that the Assembly is up and running, surely it is time to engage every party in that Assembly to have a consensus on the way forward on what is very vexed legislation.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, what is really important, now that the independent commission is operational as of last Wednesday, is that we give it the time and space to carry out investigations and do its work in delivering answers for victims and survivors. I must point out that I read the interview with the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the Irish News last week, and what was clear, once I managed to decipher the complete muddle in that interview, was that the party opposite has no coherent plan for dealing with legacy matters whatever, other than taking us back to square one.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the legacies of the Troubles is the high level of trauma and PTSD suffered by victims? The answers to the questions on the legacy Act did not include the Minister informing the House that major provisions of that Act have now been held by the High Court in Belfast to be in breach of national and international law. In those circumstances, can the Minister tell the House what proposals the Government have to provide support to those who have been further traumatised by the passing of this Act and the consequential termination of normal processes, such as inquests, many of which could not proceed because of the refusal of the Northern Ireland Office and MI5 to grant disclosure of materials, even in the form of gists prepared by the PSNI? What support will be available to families who have attended up to 40 hearings trying to get that information and whose inquests are now closed?
Lord Caine (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. As I said in an earlier answer, the High Court in Belfast found that the legislation is compatible with human rights law in respect of independence and the ability to carry out effective investigations. To take her point about disclosure, the disclosure provisions offer the prospect of better outcomes than current mechanisms.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the ongoing uncertainty caused by the Government’s appeal against the High Court ruling on immunity is merely prolonging the pain and uncertainty for victims and their families who have already waited so long for justice?
Lord Caine (Con)
The noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree. The commission, as she knows, became fully operational last week and is now proceeding with its work under the distinguished leadership of Sir Declan Morgan, the former Lord Chief Justice, and Peter Sheridan, a former senior police officer.
Lord Godson (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister reflect on the remarks of Michael McDowell TD, a former Irish Attorney-General and Minister for Justice between 1999 and 2007, as quoted in the Irish Times last November, when he reminded us that the Republic’s approach to legacy has always been based on the indemnities presently being condemned by some noble Lords in this House? Will he also add something: that the approach of the Belfast agreement was to honour and care for innocent victims and to support their right to remember as well as to move on and contribute to a changed society? Does my noble friend the Minister therefore agree that the UK’s current policy is consistent with the Belfast agreement in all its aspects?
Lord Caine (Con)
I agree with my noble friend that the legislation is absolutely consistent with the Belfast agreement, to which we remain resolutely committed as a Government. It is worth recalling that both the UK and Irish Governments have previously decided to make compromises on established criminal justice processes in the hope of moving the process forward, including decommissioning, prisoner releases and the search for the location of victims’ remains. As my noble friend made clear, the Irish Government’s position is hard to reconcile in relation to the positions they have adopted on these matters in the past and, indeed, their own record of dealing with Troubles-related cases within their own jurisdiction, where, to the best of my knowledge, there has not been a single prosecution since April 1998.
Northern Ireland
Lord Caine Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine
That an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty welcoming the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, re-affirming the importance of upholding the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 in all its strands, acknowledging the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under Article 6 of those Acts, and recognising that, consistent with section 23(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, executive power in Northern Ireland shall continue to be vested in His Majesty, and that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 in respect of the UK and Irish Governments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, before I start, I put on record my personal tribute to the late Lord Cormack, who died suddenly over the weekend. Many noble Lords will know that Patrick was a very distinguished chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in the other place and took a huge and highly informed interest in Northern Ireland affairs. He was hugely supportive of me, both as a new Member in this place in 2016 and subsequently as a Minister, even when we disagreed on certain issues. His contributions to our debates on Northern Ireland will be sorely missed.
The humble Address welcomes the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland; re-affirms the importance of upholding the Belfast/Good Friday agreement 1998 in all its strands; acknowledges the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under Article 6 of those Acts; recognises that, consistent with Section 23(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998,
“executive power in Northern Ireland shall continue to be vested in”
His Majesty; and that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast agreement in respect of the UK and Irish Governments.
We have now seen the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, following the publication last month of the Command Paper Safeguarding the Union. I know I speak for most noble Lords in welcoming these extremely positive developments, after Northern Ireland had been without a devolved Government for two years. Indeed, Northern Ireland has been without a devolved Government for some five of the past seven years. We have already seen what can be done when the political parties are back in government, working together to deliver for those who elect them. Aided by the £3.3 billion of funding provided by the UK Government, the Executive have already decided to allocate over £685 million to allow conversations to commence between employers and trade unions in relation to public sector pay.
The Government’s significant, fair and generous spending settlement will also allow the Northern Ireland Executive to stabilise public services, better manage public finances, increase opportunities for improved infrastructure and investment and pave the way for the transformation of public services. We now look forward to working with the new First Minister and Deputy First Minister and all their ministerial colleagues in the Executive to deliver these shared objectives, and eagerly await a sustainability plan for Northern Ireland’s finances, including proposals for revenue raising, following the discussions that took place between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the political parties on these issues at Hillsborough Castle prior to Christmas.
I move this humble Address today to welcome the return of devolution and honour the Government’s commitment in the Command Paper to provide a mechanism for Parliament to affirm its support for the Acts of Union, and outline that there is no basis in the Belfast agreement for joint authority arrangements with the Government of Ireland. The UK Government’s commitment to the Belfast agreement in its totality is unwavering. As I have said many times in your Lordships’ House, the agreement is the bedrock of all the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland during the past 26 years. Part of the genius of the agreement, for me, is that it accommodates different aspirations while allowing people to work together for the good of the whole community—something I hope we will now see on a sustainable, long-term basis.
The restoration of the strand 1 institutions is therefore welcome news, and I am hopeful that we will soon see the North/South Ministerial Council and other strand 2 implementation bodies return to full operation, alongside the meetings of the British-Irish Council and British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference that are already scheduled to take place in the coming months. It is this three-stranded approach—this delicate, careful, interdependent balance —that will honour the spirit and letter of the agreement, providing a fitting tribute to those who, some 26 years ago, helped deliver the agreement that is, as I have just said, the foundation of so much peace and stability in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute, as always, to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, for his contribution and role in delivering that agreement in 1998.
To be clear, this Government will always uphold the long-established three-stranded approach to Northern Ireland affairs, meaning that internal arrangements for the governance of Northern Ireland, including any potential reforms to the institutions, are for the Northern Ireland parties and the UK Government to decide. This humble Address also rightly acknowledges the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under Article 6 of those Acts. The Government are clear that the new arrangements committed to in the Command Paper, including the UK internal market system, ensure the smooth flow of trade across the UK. Our determination to ensure that that happens was demonstrated when we enshrined the unfettered access of qualifying Northern Ireland goods to the whole UK internal market.
The final part of this humble Address relates to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. The Belfast agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are explicit that any change to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland would require the consent of a majority of its people. The UK Government are absolutely clear that there is no basis to suggest that, at present, a majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to separate from the United Kingdom. Our position is therefore straight- forward: Northern Ireland has a bright and prosperous future within the union for as long as the people of Northern Ireland wish it. As a Conservative and Unionist Government, that is something we warmly welcome.
What we cannot countenance and will not consider is what some have described as “joint authority”—a vague and frankly ill-defined concept that would see the UK and Irish Governments somehow exercise joint sovereignty over a part of the United Kingdom. That will not happen, either de facto or de jure. The agreement sets out two constitutional futures: Northern Ireland as fully part of the United Kingdom or wholly part of a sovereign, independent united Ireland. There is no third way. The UK Government are absolutely clear that the consent principle of the Belfast agreement governs the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. We will not countenance any arrangements that are inconsistent with that. It follows, therefore, that Northern Ireland is not some kind of hybrid state. It is, under the consent principle, clearly and unequivocally an integral part of the United Kingdom.
My central motivation is to make Northern Ireland work and flourish, and to do so for everyone, regardless of their community background or ultimate political aspirations. That requires fully functioning devolved power-sharing institutions, with locally elected politicians taking decisions over local matters, accountable to a local Assembly. I once again welcome the decision of the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, to return his party to Stormont, backed by the legislation that has now been passed in both Houses of Parliament. As local representatives work again in the interests of the people who elected them, we remain committed to building a brighter, stronger and more prosperous future for Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, and that is what this humble Address affirms and delivers. I beg to move.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I rise to close the debate on this humble Address and thank all those who have participated in it. I am grateful to noble Lords who have directed kind words to me as a Minister at the Dispatch Box, particularly my noble friend Lord Godson and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, whom it is always a huge pleasure to hear speak on Northern Ireland affairs.
At some point during the discussions this evening, I was reminded of the late Willie Whitelaw’s quip about déjà vu all over again. We have gone over quite a lot of this territory as recently as a fortnight ago, when we debated statutory instruments, so with the leave of the House I might not refer to every single issue that has been raised; otherwise, we risk being here until midnight. There were a number of references to Bushmills. Duties or not, I look forward to enjoying one in about half an hour.
As I said in my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House some years ago, and as my noble friend Lord Lexden knows all too well, I am, and remain, an unapologetic unionist, steadfast in my belief that the best future for Northern Ireland will always be as an integral part of a strong and prosperous United Kingdom. We are, as a number of noble Lords reminded us, the most successful political and economic union in the world—something on which most noble Lords in this House will agree. I strongly endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, my noble friend Lord Lilley and many others about the importance and value of the union of the United Kingdom.
I also want to very briefly address the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. Of course, we recognise that there are people in Northern Ireland who hold a different view and desire a different constitutional outcome, and the agreement is very clear in respect of the rights of everybody in Northern Ireland to parity of esteem and equity of treatment, no matter their political aspiration. We believe strongly in upholding that.
The debate this evening has reiterated our unwavering support for the union. We have reaffirmed the importance of upholding the Belfast agreement in all its strands. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, was right to remind us of—as I said in my opening speech—the interlocking nature and interdependence of those three strands.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked me about future meetings of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. It is due to meet in the spring and work is in progress in that respect. The British-Irish Council is, I think, due to meet later in the summer—normally around June or July. The North/South Ministerial Council is a Strand Two matter, not one for the UK Government, but I hope it will meet very shortly.
We have acknowledged in the debate the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under Article VI of those Acts. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Bew, I have not yet consulted the speeches of Pitt the Younger during the passage of the Acts, but he has inspired me to maybe look more closely at some of the aspirations that he and Castlereagh set out at the time.
We have also, importantly, recognised that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast agreement in respect of the UK and Irish Governments. The noble Lord reminded us of the New Ireland Forum. I will not necessarily repeat the words used by Mrs Thatcher at the time but I have strong sympathy with them, just as I do the views on the subject raised by my noble friend Lord Lexden.
The regret amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, which was supported by some noble Lords behind me, pertains to the requirements for passing a consent vote on the application of the Windsor Framework and its purported effect on the Acts of Union more generally. I note that the noble Baroness’s amendment is very similar to a manuscript amendment she moved in Committee on the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill, long before the changes set out in the Windsor Framework and the Command Paper.
The noble Baroness followed quite closely a number of the arguments that were made in the court cases that took place on these issues. I gently and politely remind her that the applicants lost on all three counts in every court in the land, which she seems to have omitted during her comments.
In our view, very clearly there is no trade border, by any reasonable or sensible comparison with any other trade border in the world, for goods moving within the UK internal market. That will become clearer with the introduction of checks coming from the EU, including Ireland. I welcome the contribution of my noble friend Lord Lilley on these matters; as I say, we are confident that the changes that we have made to the protocol, through the Windsor Framework and the Command Paper, will ensure the smooth passage of trade within the United Kingdom.
Of course, if issues arise over the course of implementation, there are structures in place with the EU to try to address those matters. My noble friend will know that my views on the original protocol are almost identical to the ones set out by my noble friend Lord Lexden. I regard the Windsor Framework and the Command Paper as significant improvements on what was a particularly disappointing outcome back in the autumn of 2019. Obviously, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but we are confident that the new arrangements will work to ensure the smooth passage of trade throughout the United Kingdom and the internal market.
In the Government’s view, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, overlooks the reality of the changes we have made. In addition, we believe that the law is now crystal clear that the Windsor Framework is without prejudice to Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom. The provision we made in law through the instrument that became law last week includes the Acts of Union; we are clear that the Windsor Framework fully respects that. Our position on these matters is set out very clearly in the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper, as I have said before. In summary, the Government believe that those Acts of Union continue to have effect today and have not been undermined.
The changes we have made now mean that the law contains important new statutory protections for any independent review of the framework to be taken forward. Those protections will ensure that a review is taken forward within one month, responded to within a set period, and that its recommendations are given proper reflection, if a consent vote is not passed on a cross-community basis. These changes we have made reflect the Government’s commitment to seeking agreement that is as broad as possible in Northern Ireland, and to ensuring that action is taken, if that agreement is not forthcoming. I reiterate that commitment once again to all noble Lords.
The Government must therefore disagree with the regret amendment, which does not reflect the reality of the statute book today or the Windsor Framework and the Command Paper, which ensure the smooth flow of trade across the United Kingdom. In the coming weeks and months, the Government will continue to deliver commitments made under the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper, and continue to work with the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly Members to improve the lives of people living in Northern Ireland.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Jay, whose committee I had the privilege of serving on for a period of time, my noble friend Lord Lexden, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and others, asked about implementation. I cannot give precise timetables, but I commit, where possible, to keeping the House updated on some of the new bodies that are proposed. A reference was made, I think by my noble friend Lord Lexden, to the Sports Minister; I can confirm that that visit is taking place imminently. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, made reference to trying to involve Northern Ireland in the evolution of new EU laws; there are UK-EU joint bodies established, which will enable Northern Ireland’s views to be fed in at an early stage. I hope that reassures him.
My noble friend Lord Lexden, in a characteristically wise and scholarly speech, referred to one aspect not included in the humble Address, which is the contribution of His Majesty and members of the Royal Family to life in Northern Ireland. I want to put on record my complete agreement with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend.
I will pick out just one moment. I was present in the Lyric Theatre in 2012 when the late Queen shook the hand of Martin McGuinness. During the same visit, she also crossed the road in Enniskillen from the Anglican cathedral to the Catholic chapel. These both demonstrated her amazing ability to bring people together. I know that this commitment is shared by His Majesty the King, who is hugely devoted to Northern Ireland.
The hour is late. We have heard a number of impassioned speeches, not least from the Benches behind me, but also from right across the House. They echoed points made in this Chamber on a number of occasions in recent weeks. I do not for one second doubt the sincerity with which a number of noble Lords have expressed their concerns—in some cases, their opposition to the Windsor Framework and the Command Paper and, in certain cases, the decision of their party leader to return to devolved government. They are, of course, entitled to their view, which I entirely respect. However, I do not believe that this view represents a majority either within unionism or across Northern Ireland as a whole. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, referred to some polling that has taken place on these matters. It is not a view shared by this Conservative and Unionist Government—or, I should add, by this staunchly Conservative and Unionist Minister, who believes that we now have the right basis for moving Northern Ireland forward.
I very much agree that now is the time to move on, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and others pointed out. We must look forward. In this respect, I commend the speech by the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party in the other place yesterday evening. As Sir Jeffrey made clear, the Northern Ireland of today is vastly different even from when the Belfast agreement was reached 26 years ago. Unionism can no longer rely on the electoral map being coloured orange and green and on its in-built majority. The Northern Ireland of today is, as has been pointed out, one of competing minorities in which the task for those, like me, who cherish the union and want to see it thrive is to reach out and win friends across traditional divides and across generations.
I will be expressly clear once again: Northern Ireland’s position is based on consent, as many noble Lords have pointed out. The task for those of us who want to see the union prosper is to consider how we broaden support for Northern Ireland’s constitutional position in the world as it is today, not as it might have been in the past. I welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hay of Ballyore, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. Central to all this is making Northern Ireland a stable, peaceful and prosperous place for everyone who lives there, regardless of their community background or political aspirations. As the noble Lord, Lord Bew, pointed out, I very much hope that we are now entering a new era of stability in Northern Ireland.
In moving this Motion on the humble Address, His Majesty’s Government firmly believe that, with the arrangements now in place, along with the restoration of devolved government and the generous £3.3 billion financial package for the Executive, together with other financial contributions such as the Peace Plus £700 million-plus, we have an opportunity to make that vision for Northern Ireland a reality and to move Northern Ireland forward. In so doing, we guarantee Northern Ireland’s place as an integral part of this great United Kingdom.
Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2024
Lord Caine Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 10 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 26 February.
Representation of the People (Postal Vote Handling etc.) (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Lord Caine Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine
That the Grand Committee do consider the Representation of the People (Postal Vote Handling etc.) (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.